VANAHALLI HOMEO PHARMACEUTICALS Vs. KARNATAKA STATE DRUG LOGISTICS AND WAREHOUSING SOCIETY REGD. AND THE COMMISSIONER FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the notice dated 26.02.2010 (Annexure -F) on the ground that the same does not provide opportunity to the petitioner to putforth their case. In that regard the petitioner is seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the entire amount due to the petitioner in pursuance of the drugs supplied. The petitioner is also seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass necessary orders. The petitioner is the supplier of drugs to the Government of Karnataka for the purpose of use in various Medical Centers run by the State. Pursuant to the tender notification, the order for supply of drugs was awarded to the petitioner on 17.02.2009 and an agreement was entered into between the parties on the same day. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner is said to have supplied Ointment and Calendula powder.

(2.) THE issue presently is with regard to the payment of amount for the supply said to have been made by the petitioner. Since, the petitioner contends that the supply made is as per the requirement and the same has been accepted by the respondents, the payment due towards the cost of the supplies made is to be released in favour of the petitioner. In that regard, since the respondent No. 1 has issued show cause notice dated 26.02.2010 directing the petitioner to replace the stock supplied with appropriate stocks, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) HAVING taken these aspects into consideration, a perusal of the show cause notice dated 26.02.2010 in fact would indicate that the respondent No. 1 has referred to the reference at Sl. Nos. 7 and 9 of the said show cause notice and has arrived at the conclusion that supplies made is not as per the specification and a decision has been taken to direct the petitioner to supply appropriate stocks within 30 days. This in fact is the conclusion reached by the respondent No. 1 without providing opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, that portion of the show cause notice dated 26.02.2010 would not be sustainable and the same is set aside. The respondent No. 1 is directed to treat the same barely as a show cause notice to the petitioner and provide opportunity to them.